MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Kr</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mprescripts/><mml:mrow><mml:mn>36</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>96</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>–Low-<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math> Boundary of the Island of Deformation at <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>

2017· article· lv· W2607437494 on OpenAlexaff
J. Dudouet, A. Lemasson, G. Duchêne, M. Rejmund, E. Clément, C. Michelagnoli, F. Didierjean, A. Korichi, Guillaume Maquart, O. Stézowski, C. Lizarazo, R. M. Pérez-Vidal, C. Andreoiu, G. de Angelis, A. Astier, C. Delafosse, I. Deloncle, Zsolt Dombrádi, G. de France, A. Gadea, A. Gottardo, B. Jacquot, Peter G. Jones, T. Konstantinopoulos, I. Kuti, F. Le Blanc, S. M. Lenzi, G. Li, R. Lozeva, B. Million, D. R. Napoli, A. Navin, C. M. Petrache, N. Pietralla, D. Ralet, M. Ramdhane, N. Redon, C. Schmitt, D. Sohler, D. Verney, D. Barrientos, B. Birkenbach, I. Burrows, L. Charles, J. Collado, D. M. Cullen, P. Désesquelles, C. Domingo‐Pardo, V. González, L. J. Harkness-Brennan, H. Hess, D. S. Judson, M. Karolak, W. Korten, M. Labiche, J. Ljungvall, R. Menegazzo, D. Mengoni, A. Pullia, F. Recchia, P. Reiter, M.‐D. Salsac, E. Sanchís, Ch. Theisen, J. J. Valiente-Dobón, M. Zielińska

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeEuropean Regional Development FundHelmholtz International Center for FAIRGeneralitat ValencianaMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadLOEWE Zentrum AdRIABundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEuropean Commission
KeywordsExcited statePhysicsProtonNeutronAtomic physicsQuadrupoleEnergy (signal processing)Nuclear magnetic resonanceNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prompt γ-ray spectroscopy of the neutron-rich ^{96}Kr, produced in transfer- and fusion-induced fission reactions, has been performed using the combination of the Advanced Gamma Tracking Array and the VAMOS++ spectrometer. A second excited state, assigned to J^{π}=4^{+}, is observed for the first time, and a previously reported level energy of the first 2^{+} excited state is confirmed. The measured energy ratio R_{4/2}=E(4^{+})/E(2^{+})=2.12(1) indicates that this nucleus does not show a well-developed collectivity contrary to that seen in heavier N=60 isotones. This new measurement highlights an abrupt transition of the degree of collectivity as a function of the proton number at Z=36, of similar amplitude to that observed at N=60 at higher Z values. A possible reason for this abrupt transition could be related to the insufficient proton excitations in the g_{9/2}, d_{5/2}, and s_{1/2} orbitals to generate strong quadrupole correlations or to the coexistence of competing different shapes. An unexpected continuous decrease of R_{4/2} as a function of the neutron number up to N=60 is also evidenced. This measurement establishes the Kr isotopic chain as the low-Z boundary of the island of deformation for N=60 isotones. A comparison with available theoretical predictions using different beyond mean-field approaches shows that these models fail to reproduce the abrupt transitions at N=60 and Z=36.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.010
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0110.012
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4750.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207